(Nobody disputes these numbers, so don't try to pull a fast one by saying the Congolese can't come up with reliable data. The Congolese are masters at data collection. It's a remnant of the obsessive record-keeping the Belgians did while discriminating against tens of millions of people in health care and education. You can go to Brussels today and find out how many untreated cases of intestinal schistosomiasis led to Congolese deaths in 1948. And today there is a standardized form that doctors fill out when a woman or girl has been violently raped. The data is as solid as it can be under the circumstances.)

Those numbers represent the human cost of Kimia II. But, you might say, there's always collateral damage in war. It goes with the territory. And don't we want to eliminate the threat from the FDLR? Yes, of course. It's unfortunate, but true that some civilians will probably suffer in the effort to get the territory under control. Some of these abuses were certainly committed by the FDLR. But a lot of them were committed by the FARDC.

That said, we have to consider the proportional effects of the effort. And those numbers, dear MONUC and all the Western capitals that supported this operation, are not in your favor. As the above-linked-to article notes, for every FDLR rebel you disarmed:

"We're seeing more cases of mutilation, extreme violence, and torture in sexual violence cases against women and girls, and many more of the victims are children."

Oh, and odds are that you've created plenty of new FDLR rebels through this operation. Surely you're not so naive as to believe that disarming 1,071 people means you can just get rid of rebel after rebel and eventually eliminate the FDLR. That didn't work in Vietnam and it won't work here.

What I don't get is why you insisted on persisting with this operation even when it was clear that Kimia II was causing massive human suffering. We knew within six months of the operation's launch that it was a disaster. And yet you continued. Why? When humanitarian advocates, representatives of international NGO's, scholars, and the Congolese spent the last four months telling you this operation had to stop because the human cost was so high, did you not believe us? What suggested to you that involving the FARDC in an operation would mean that civilians would be protected from all the war criminals within its ranks? How can you look at the Congolese civilians you are ostensibly trying to protect and tell them that this was all in their best interest?

I genuinely want to know. Was it worth it?

(Updated to note that the coalition includes international NGO's & advocates, and to clarify that the math was in the Guardian article.)